This is a debate between me and one Todd Lewis, hosted by Keith Preston, about self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. Lewis had participated in a decent debate with Walter Block previously, so I agreed to discuss with him, even though he was not clear where he was coming from, what his own position was, or what he hoped to prove by debunking the NAP (whenever someone is opposed to the NAP, I assume they want to justify aggression—I think I’m right). This Lewis character appears to be some kind of “Mennonite” Christian in Ohio, and claims to be a former “fusionist” (some kind of libertarian+conservative) and now some form of Christian conservative who believes in legally punishing homosexuality. I don’t think he was ever really a libertarian, to be honest. He attacks a lot of strawmen, and never really responds to my coherent statement of the libertarian vision. He calls this the “Praise of Folly” “podcast” though it is not a podcast since there is no RSS feed. But I’ll grant, he was far more civil and even intelligent than others I have debated, on topics like anarchy and IP, such as Jan Helfeld and Robert Wenzel, though that’s admittedly a low bar.

Related

Todd said something to the effect that God owns people, and that animals directly control their bodies and thus according to libertarian logic they are self-owners. Would it be correct to reply that that might be fine but the legal system we are trying to design only deals with humans and therefore God and animals are out of scope?
If so, why?
The debate itself was the usual: one learns absolutely nothing because the opponent is clueless and has no competing theory of his own, just tries to poke holes in the libertarian one. Which, first, he fails to do and second – even if he succeeded to win a particular point (e. g. he might win against Block on abortions), so what? All it would mean is libertarians have to slightly refine their theory which otherwise remains correct.
But he did seem honest, just confused.
As for a debate with a religious person – I would LOVE a debate with a knowledgeable guy such as Murphy or Tucker.

When I want to mess around with a humanist christian of the anabaptist tradition, I tell him that Erasmus was probably a homosexual. The Textus Receptus was compiled by a homo. I’ve seen people fainting after hearing that one.

I am in favor of stoning homosexuals. Everyone should be stoned. Everyone tends to become incapable of violence when they are stoned with the right weed. Doping is a great option if one can’t be peaceful using only reason.

A quote from Matthew 19:
‘All do not receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given; for there are eunuchs who from the mother’s womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who kept themselves eunuchs because of the reign of the heavens: he who is able to receive [it] — let him receive.’
[Young’s Literal Translation]

I don’t believe in the NAP because egregiously claims are nonsense. Is it your vote that Max Stirner wanted to ‘justify aggression’? Keith Preston who frequently co-hosts the show has views in the vein of Stirner, and is also a well known anarchist. I simply don’t believe ethical claims are meaningful, other than as heuristics Schelling points within a group of people who already have substantive agreement what constitutes acceptable core values. Libertarian Enlightenment-Humanist moralizing is just as false as muhEquality, it’s tedious tribal signalling behavior.
I happen to favor a kind of raw propertarianism, but sadly there are no medical Max Mercury-Holy Grace orts of attorneys the same s to compel pee on to accept this garbage. Libertarian moralizing if a disingenuous guerrilla war on subjective value theory.

Jesus hate Swype, “there are no Max Mercury-Holy Grace sorts of arguments that compel anyone to accept your prudence’s for a certain legal system or ethos, and it’s fucking annoying and autistic and why I usually avoid libertarians in debate, they’re worst than communists. MuhRights.